Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Defence of Multinational Citizenship. Siobhan Harty and Michael Murphy. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005. 206 pp. $32.95 sc. Will Kymlicka's work on multicultural citizenship and minority cultural rights (1995) has inaugurated a field for political scientists, social theorists, and assorted cultural critics. Siobhan Harty and Michael Murphy's volume extends project of delineating rights of Aboriginals, substates, and ethnic communities within context of globalized citizenship and problems of state sovereignty. The basic assumption here rejects notions of globalized, non-territorial citizenships: Harty and Murphy argue that even in transnational forms of identity, territorial identities remain important. Aboriginals, for example, are loyal to territorial forms of identity. What is therefore needed is multinational citizenship, where notions of sovereignty, citizenship, and belonging, and even democracy, will have to be recast. Hart), and Murphy define multinational citizenship as something that gives equal recognition to citizenship regimes of state and substate nations through a democratic argument for self-determination at substate level and a revised conception of state sovereignty that is divided and shared (p. 3). Self-determination is central to minorities, especially if they have to belonginguess (or citizenship) within a state, and they argue that self-determination is a right. Regional decision-making processes should ensure participation of Aboriginals and substate people in state's democratic processes. The early chapters survey theories of citizenship and belonging. Citizenship, they argue, must be differentiated--Harty and Murphy repeatedly emphasize that differentiated citizenship or self-determination does not mean secession--for all peoples to feel empowered. Looking at several multination states, especially in Europe, Harry and Murphy agree that multiple ethnicities and loyalties often troubled nation-building and stability. The issue of 'unnational citizenship (where equality between majority and minority is guaranteed by renunciation of national character by state) is discussed with regard to two areas: centralized nature of political authority and role of sovereign nation-state. Unfortunately, citizenship is even today tied up with state nationalism, they argue. The liberal nationalist response to debate has been to turn to issues of moral commitment (e.g., Richard Rorty) or a defence of nationalism that takes recourse in liberal-communitarianism (e.g., Kymlicka). In most of these cases, argue Harty and Murphy, thinkers turn to culturalist arguments. Their point is simple: the democratic right to self-determination should not be subordinated to choice one makes (or does not make) regarding matters of culture (p. 66). In order to achieve such a condition of self-determination, they propose three principles: internal democracy (a nation's right to choose how and by whom it will be governed), external democracy (a nation's right to govern itself as freely as possible from external interference or domination), and shared-rule democracy (the doctrine of autonomy of nations and idea of self-rule). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,032 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».